I posted a comment at Joe Pixel's blog yesterday that may have been a bit cryptic. I wanted to expand on it a little here. The basic idea is this: the current legal, social, and corporate events surrounding the internet and intellectual property law are going to have as much historical significance as the protestant reformation and the Gutenburg press. This assertion is based on the premise that the key contributions of the reformation pertained to the control of information. Scriptures were being translated into common languages and distributed en masse. People were learning to read in greater numbers:

The work of a 14th century monk, John Wycliffe, did much to reform the political structure of England. He laid the foundation of reform of not only the Church but also the State. He resolved to introduce the common people to the New Testament by translating it into the vernacular of the Saxon peasants. Before the 15th century, every Englishman who could read was able to question the teachings of the Catholic Church with regard to both civil and ecclesiastical government. Because of the perceived threat of Wycliffe's followers, the Lollards, who distributed and taught from English New Testaments, the Catholic Church banned translation of the Bible in 1408. The only copies that continued to exist in English were hand copies of the Wycliffe originals. In the 1440s, Johannes Gutenburg began experimenting with novel, mysterious ways of approaching printing. Skilled in engraving and metal working, Gutenburg invented movable typeset and printed 200 copies of the Latin Bible. By the time Martin Luther was born in 1483, Germany had several large printing presses capable of printing hundreds of books at a time. [link]

The simple ability of individuals to read and evaluate scripture was catastrophic to the authority of the priesthood. The technology of the printing press catalyzed the changes that led to the modern era. I believe the internet is having a similar impact. It has provided us with a new substrate for communication -- one which is more complete, more efficient, more broad and less controllable than any that has existed before. It is at the same time an instrument of mass- and intimate communications. It is the substance of the marketplace of ideas. Among other things, the internet challenges the notion that information, once exposed to the public, can be controlled. This is the old lie of the priesthood, echoed today by corporations who claim "intellectual property" over everything from musical recordings to peoples' names. If the technology is allowed to develop as it should, unimpeded by legal meddling, then the new age of ubiquitous connectivity will finish what Wycliffe started. Some recent cases of interest:

• Blogs beat newspapers in online searches. Do a Google search for some current event, and you'll likely get a lot of blog results. Is this "blog noise," as some have called it? Or is this phenomenon levelling the concept of authority in news and commentary? During the Iraq war, whose news was more interesting: CNN or the war bloggers? I think there was a lot more interesting information to be found in weblogs of independent journalists and residents of the affected areas (remember the Dear Rayed blog that was evidently posted from Baghdad before the war cut him off?)...
• Nervous government. In spite of all past rulings guaranteeing free speech in the US, judges and politicians perpetually insist that the internet is somehow different. Some would have us believe that all speech is commercial speech online, and other nonsense. The latest case is particularly strange: Miss Vermont has successfully sued someone who claims to be a former boyfriend.

  Judge Lewis ruled on May 6, before Mr. Max was notified of the suit and without holding a hearing. She told Mr. Max that he could not use "Katy" on his site. Nor could he use Ms. Johnson's last name, full name or the words "Miss Vermont." The judge also prohibited Mr. Max from "disclosing any stories, facts or information, notwithstanding its truth, about any intimate or sexual acts engaged in by" Ms. Johnson. That prohibition is not limited to his Web site. Finally, Judge Lewis ordered Mr. Max to sever the virtual remains of his relationship with Ms. Johnson. He is no longer allowed to link to her Web site. [NY Times]

  Like many rulings which involve the internet, this is unprecedented and idiotic. I have to wonder if the same ruling would be made if Mr Max had been mailing newsletters instead of posting a web page.

Such knee-jerk prohibitions are rooted in the same nervousness felt by the catholic church when the Bible was translated. The ability to speak and be heard without restriction is itself a threat to common notions of authority. The vestiges of priestly authority remain, insisting that certain sights, sounds, and topics are taboo. There are few powers greater than the ability to restrict what people can transmit and receive. But now the ability of each person to transmit and receieve what they damn well please is becoming too great to control. In the long run, I don't think anything -- government or corporation of family-values-grassroots-watchdog-group or copyright protection -- will be able to restrict the total freedom that people demand.